From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband


I have just spoken to EE about this.

I can get 4G in the village and was offered 2 packages:

100 Mb/s unlimited downloads u35 per month
Max speed (whatever the SIM supports) unlimited downloads u43 per month

I currently get 12 Mb/s over my landline so the potential speed is a dream.

Problem is the connections is via a small box that you can take from room
to room and connect to via WiFi so whenever I want to use the Internet I
have to connect (up to 5 devices a time).

At the moment I feed the connection into my powerline so it's available in
any room and the router also has WiFi so any device can connect via WiFi.

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that
you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Those are my principles u and if you donAt like them, well, I have others. (Groucho Marx)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

I have just spoken to EE about this.

I can get 4G in the village and was offered 2 packages:

100 Mb/s unlimited downloads -u35 per month
Max speed (whatever the SIM supports) unlimited downloads -u43 per month

I currently get 12 Mb/s over my landline so the potential speed is a dream.

Be aware that mobile networks are very traffic-sensitive, much more so than DSL. When other people are using them heavily the data rate will drop, potentially a lot, conceivably to zero if the cell is overloaded.

Problem is the connections is via a small box that you can take from room
to room and connect to via WiFi so whenever I want to use the Internet I have to connect (up to 5 devices a time).

At the moment I feed the connection into my powerline so it's available in any room and the router also has WiFi so any device can connect via WiFi.

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that
you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

You don't need to use their supplied hub if you don't want to. When you
have their SIM card you can put it in any device.

You can get routers which look the same as a regular routed for wired broadband, that just take a SIM card and use that for the broadband connections. They have wifi and ethernet that works like any other router. They would be a direct swap for your existing router.

If you have a non-ISP router lying around, some of them already support that
if you add a 4G/5G USB dongle.

Theo
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 21/05/2026 in message <7Qv*rt7GA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> Theo wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

I have just spoken to EE about this.

I can get 4G in the village and was offered 2 packages:

100 Mb/s unlimited downloads -u35 per month
Max speed (whatever the SIM supports) unlimited downloads -u43 per month

I currently get 12 Mb/s over my landline so the potential speed is a >>dream.

Be aware that mobile networks are very traffic-sensitive, much more so than >DSL. When other people are using them heavily the data rate will drop, >potentially a lot, conceivably to zero if the cell is overloaded.

Problem is the connections is via a small box that you can take from room >>to room and connect to via WiFi so whenever I want to use the Internet I >>have to connect (up to 5 devices a time).

At the moment I feed the connection into my powerline so it's available in >>any room and the router also has WiFi so any device can connect via WiFi.

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that
you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

You don't need to use their supplied hub if you don't want to. When you
have their SIM card you can put it in any device.

You can get routers which look the same as a regular routed for wired >broadband, that just take a SIM card and use that for the broadband >connections. They have wifi and ethernet that works like any other router. >They would be a direct swap for your existing router.

If you have a non-ISP router lying around, some of them already support
that
if you add a 4G/5G USB dongle.

Theo

OK, thanks Theo :-)

I have just been speaking to Plusnet and told them my speed had dropped
from 30 Mb/s to 12 Mb/s over 4 years and they ran a check. I then got a
slight spanking as they said I had 5 WiFi devices and 12 wired devices connected to my router which is only designed to connect 3 devices!
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Indecision is the key to flexibility
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 21/05/2026 in message <7Qv*rt7GA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> Theo wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

I have just spoken to EE about this.

I can get 4G in the village and was offered 2 packages:

100 Mb/s unlimited downloads -u35 per month
Max speed (whatever the SIM supports) unlimited downloads -u43 per month >>>
I currently get 12 Mb/s over my landline so the potential speed is a
dream.

Be aware that mobile networks are very traffic-sensitive, much more so than >> DSL. When other people are using them heavily the data rate will drop,
potentially a lot, conceivably to zero if the cell is overloaded.

Problem is the connections is via a small box that you can take from room >>> to room and connect to via WiFi so whenever I want to use the Internet I >>> have to connect (up to 5 devices a time).

At the moment I feed the connection into my powerline so it's available in >>> any room and the router also has WiFi so any device can connect via WiFi. >>>
Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that
you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

You don't need to use their supplied hub if you don't want to. When you
have their SIM card you can put it in any device.

You can get routers which look the same as a regular routed for wired
broadband, that just take a SIM card and use that for the broadband
connections. They have wifi and ethernet that works like any other router. >> They would be a direct swap for your existing router.

If you have a non-ISP router lying around, some of them already support
that
if you add a 4G/5G USB dongle.

Theo

OK, thanks Theo :-)

I have just been speaking to Plusnet and told them my speed had dropped
from 30 Mb/s to 12 Mb/s over 4 years and they ran a check. I then got a slight spanking as they said I had 5 WiFi devices and 12 wired devices connected to my router which is only designed to connect 3 devices!

A work colleague was forced to use 4G Vodafone cellular because of lack of
any other viable alternative. The cell site was relatively near. As Theo
said, itrCOs good when itrCOs good but can become very bad at times. She abandoned it for Starlink, which has proved to be very much better. 100 Mbit/sec Starlink is currently 40 GBP/month.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 21/05/2026 10:41, Theo wrote:

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

I have just spoken to EE about this.

I can get 4G in the village and was offered 2 packages:

100 Mb/s unlimited downloads -u35 per month
Max speed (whatever the SIM supports) unlimited downloads -u43 per month

I currently get 12 Mb/s over my landline so the potential speed is a dream.

Be aware that mobile networks are very traffic-sensitive, much more so than DSL. When other people are using them heavily the data rate will drop, potentially a lot, conceivably to zero if the cell is overloaded.

Problem is the connections is via a small box that you can take from room
to room and connect to via WiFi so whenever I want to use the Internet I
have to connect (up to 5 devices a time).

At the moment I feed the connection into my powerline so it's available in >> any room and the router also has WiFi so any device can connect via WiFi.

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that
you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

You don't need to use their supplied hub if you don't want to. When you
have their SIM card you can put it in any device.

You can get routers which look the same as a regular routed for wired broadband, that just take a SIM card and use that for the broadband connections. They have wifi and ethernet that works like any other router. They would be a direct swap for your existing router.

If you have a non-ISP router lying around, some of them already support that if you add a 4G/5G USB dongle.

Theo

As Theo says. I use a TP-Link Archer MR600 router to use EE 4G (5G has
just become available here but the MR600 doesn't support it). The router
has 4 Ethernet ports and WiFi. It has its own SIM card slot and just
replaces the old ADSL router I was using. I get about 100 Mbps down and
12 Mbps up YMMV.

Hope this helps

Mark

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Jeff Gaines wrote:

[snip]

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that
you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

Be aware that most mobile networks use CGNAT. Professional email
services may reject connections coming from CGNAT because it allows
multiple users per public IP, and some of those users will (perhaps unkowingly) send "unsavoury material".

It is possible to get a static public IP but it won't be at the entry
level price.
--
Graham J
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

Jeff Gaines wrote:

[snip]

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

Be aware that most mobile networks use CGNAT. Professional email
services may reject connections coming from CGNAT because it allows
multiple users per public IP, and some of those users will (perhaps unkowingly) send "unsavoury material".

It is possible to get a static public IP but it won't be at the entry
level price.

I would expect email to be going via an email provider like Gmail, Outlook,
or a hosting company's SMTP server. Are you saying those may block genuine authenticated users connecting via CGNAT?

Running your own SMTP server which routes direct to the recipient from
behind an ISP connection is a recipe for trouble nowadays, CGNAT or no
CGNAT. So don't do that.

Theo
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 21/05/2026 in message <6Qv*Le8GA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> Theo wrote:

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

Jeff Gaines wrote:

[snip]

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that >>>you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

Be aware that most mobile networks use CGNAT. Professional email
services may reject connections coming from CGNAT because it allows >>multiple users per public IP, and some of those users will (perhaps >>unkowingly) send "unsavoury material".

It is possible to get a static public IP but it won't be at the entry
level price.

I would expect email to be going via an email provider like Gmail, Outlook, >or a hosting company's SMTP server. Are you saying those may block genuine >authenticated users connecting via CGNAT?

Running your own SMTP server which routes direct to the recipient from
behind an ISP connection is a recipe for trouble nowadays, CGNAT or no
CGNAT. So don't do that.

Theo

My email program (eM Client) sends/collects email directly from my own
domains hosted by Heart Internet and Mythic Beasts.
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do or
say nothing. (Edmund Burke)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Theo wrote:

snip]

I would expect email to be going via an email provider like Gmail, Outlook, or a hosting company's SMTP server. Are you saying those may block genuine authenticated users connecting via CGNAT?

I'm fairly sure Gmail doesn't because many of their customers only use
mobile connections. Which is why I'm always very suspicious of
unsolicited emails from gmail addresses.

Don't know about Outlook.

A connection hosting company such as Zen Internet will usually block any
SMTP requests that do not come from their own IP range.

An email hosting service that you pay for will check the IP of an SMTP
request against blacklists; and this is what usually catches those using CGNAT.
--
Graham J
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

I have just spoken to EE about this.

I can get 4G in the village and was offered 2 packages:

100 Mb/s unlimited downloads -u35 per month
Max speed (whatever the SIM supports) unlimited downloads -u43 per month

I currently get 12 Mb/s over my landline so the potential speed is a dream.

Problem is the connections is via a small box that you can take from room
to room and connect to via WiFi so whenever I want to use the Internet I have to connect (up to 5 devices a time).

I would recommend a wired router like this one: https://www.argos.co.uk/product/8787662

It also has ethernet ports for the LAN.

At the moment I feed the connection into my powerline so it's available in any room and the router also has WiFi so any device can connect via WiFi.

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that
you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

Be aware that the bandwidth can be very variable and I'd take the 100 mbps speed with a chunk of salt.

FTR I use smarty with my setup. -u15 pm for 150MB.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 21/05/2026 in message <6Qv*Le8GA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> Theo wrote:

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

Jeff Gaines wrote:

[snip]

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that >>>you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

Be aware that most mobile networks use CGNAT. Professional email >>services may reject connections coming from CGNAT because it allows >>multiple users per public IP, and some of those users will (perhaps >>unkowingly) send "unsavoury material".

It is possible to get a static public IP but it won't be at the entry >>level price.

I would expect email to be going via an email provider like Gmail, Outlook, >or a hosting company's SMTP server. Are you saying those may block genuine >authenticated users connecting via CGNAT?

Running your own SMTP server which routes direct to the recipient from >behind an ISP connection is a recipe for trouble nowadays, CGNAT or no >CGNAT. So don't do that.

Theo

My email program (eM Client) sends/collects email directly from my own domains hosted by Heart Internet and Mythic Beasts.

That's presumably sending indirectly via the smarthost at Heart or Mythic.
ie to send an email to bob@example.com it sends it to Mythic's server, who decide which server hosts example.com and then sends it there. You'd
configure the name of the server like smtp-auth.mythic-beasts.com in eM
Client. It's the reputation of the IP of smtp-auth.mythic-beasts.com that matters to the recipient server, and presumably Mythic have done the
necessary to make it have a good reputation and not be on blacklists.

If your email program is skipping that step, instead looking up the MX
record for example.com and sending the email direct from your home IP to the destination server, that's when you are likely to fall foul of 'residential
IP' spam blacklists. Email clients (since 1990s) don't do this, but if you
run a mailserver at home then you might configure it that way.

That's why it doesn't matter if your home IP is on a spam blacklist, because the mail is forwarded via the smarthost and the recipient doesn't see your
home IP, CGNAT or otherwise.

Theo
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 21/05/2026 11:05, Jeff Gaines wrote:

I have just been speaking to Plusnet and told them my speed had dropped
from 30 Mb/s to 12 Mb/s over 4 years and they ran a check. I then got a slight spanking as they said I had 5 WiFi devices and 12 wired devices connected to my router which is only designed to connect-a 3 devices!

What a load of rubbish!

If you do a speedtest with only one active device with a direct ethernet
(not WiFi) connection and *still* only get 12Mb/sec, then something is
wrong. Obviously if you have a lot of active devices sharing the
bandwith, the performance of each one will suffer - but that's a
different matter. "Only designed to connect 3 devices" - cobblers! Sure
it's only got 3 ethernet ports - but you can use multi-way swiches and
WiFi on top of that - as I myself am doing - with no obvious problems.
Plusnet had used to employ people who knew what they talking about, but
they seem to have replaced thm with muppets!
--
Cheers,
Roger
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

Jeff Gaines wrote:

[snip]

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that >>> you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

Be aware that most mobile networks use CGNAT. Professional email
services may reject connections coming from CGNAT because it allows
multiple users per public IP, and some of those users will (perhaps
unkowingly) send "unsavoury material".

It is possible to get a static public IP but it won't be at the entry
level price.

I would expect email to be going via an email provider like Gmail, Outlook, or a hosting company's SMTP server. Are you saying those may block genuine authenticated users connecting via CGNAT?

Not in my experience. I do have one service that work uses which is
extremely sensitive and regularly complaining of allegedly cross-site
scripting attacks. I have to use a VPN with that, but otherwise there are
no issues.

Running your own SMTP server which routes direct to the recipient from
behind an ISP connection is a recipe for trouble nowadays, CGNAT or no
CGNAT. So don't do that.

Theo

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

Theo wrote:

snip]

I would expect email to be going via an email provider like Gmail, Outlook, or a hosting company's SMTP server. Are you saying those may block genuine authenticated users connecting via CGNAT?

I'm fairly sure Gmail doesn't because many of their customers only use mobile connections. Which is why I'm always very suspicious of
unsolicited emails from gmail addresses.

Don't know about Outlook.

A connection hosting company such as Zen Internet will usually block any SMTP requests that do not come from their own IP range.

ISPs don't really want to be in the email game so increasingly they don't
have any of their own SMTP servers.

An email hosting service that you pay for will check the IP of an SMTP request against blacklists; and this is what usually catches those using CGNAT.

Email hosting companies check the sending IP of emails delivered from the internet to their customers. But emails uploaded to their server by their customers for sending to the internet come in a different route - they are authenticated with customer login details, so they have no need to check against IP blacklists. Which hosting company is denying customers the
ability to use the service they've paid for based on the reputation of their IP?

Again, if you are running a mailserver at home and are trying to deliver
email direct to the recipient (ie not a customer of that email hosting
company, just sending direct to one of their users) then your IP is likely
to be blacklisted. But since 10+ years ago you shouldn't do this.

Theo
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026-05-21 10:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:

I have just spoken to EE about this.

I can get 4G in the village and was offered 2 packages:

100 Mb/s unlimited downloads -u35 per month
Max speed (whatever the SIM supports) unlimited downloads -u43 per month

I currently get 12 Mb/s over my landline so the potential speed is a dream.

Problem is the connections is via a small box that you can take from
room to room and connect to via WiFi so whenever I want to use the
Internet I have to connect (up to 5 devices a time).

At the moment I feed the connection into my powerline so it's available
in any room and the router also has WiFi so any device can connect via
WiFi.

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that
you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

Up here in the Highlands of Sutherland, my first mobile internet was
from Virgin, but they upped the price unacceptably, so then I was with
Three for a while, 'til they played silly buggers with all their
customers and their accounts, probably a preamble part of merging with Vodafone. So then I switched over to iD Mobile in mid-2024, an MVNO
running over the Three network, but, although as a customer I've not yet received any communication about my service being affected in any way, I thought that before pontificating about it I ought to check the status
of things wrt the merger:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=what+network+do+iD+Mobile+run+over+in+the+UK

"iD Mobile operates over the Three mobile network in the UK.

Additionally, because of the merger between Three UK and Vodafone UK to
form VodafoneThree, iD Mobile is currently integrating its services with
the Vodafone network. This allows your device to automatically switch
between the Three and Vodafone networks to deliver improved coverage and stronger signals."

Doubtless I will about any changes or improvements to the service in due course.

I pay iD Mobile -u15pm for unlimited downloads, which price has been
constant since I joined them. I get pretty consistently around 20Mbps
up and down, though the latter tends to start off somewhat slower, and a
ping time of 49ms, but I ought to report that at times of very heavy precipitation these speeds can drop significantly.

As far as the service itself goes, the only grumble I have is that they
seem to drop unused connections quickly, and Thunderbird when used as a
news reader cannot handle this. Thus after any sort of short break
receiving &/or sending new posts nearly always fail the first time, I
have to wait for the process to time-out before trying again, usually successfully on the second occasion. This is very irritating, but at
least seemingly it's confined to Thunderbird when used as a news reader,
it doesn't happen when Thunderbird is used with email, and AFAIAA there
are no other problems with iD Mobile's service. Their website is pretty
good, and their bills are clear and consistent.

For my router, I used to have a DrayTek Vigor 2830n, into which one
could plug a USB WWAN dongle with a SIM card, but I used find that occasionally the service would be lost and I'd have to reboot the entire router to restore it, which obviously was very disruptive to anything
else happening over the LAN. Now, thanks to Andy Burns' suggestion, I
use a hacked BT Home Hub 5a, with a USB stick on an extension lead high
up in a window facing the mast, and the results are much more consistent
and satisfactory. There are very occasional glitches, but nothing
really to complain about compared to the DrayTek or, far worse, the near useless landline connection I used to have. At the time I wrote a long
post on how to hack these routers which I will post again on request, or perhaps you may still be able to get used ones ready hacked on eBay.
--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 21/05/2026 12:34, Graham J wrote:

Jeff Gaines wrote:

[snip]

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something
that you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

Be aware that most mobile networks use CGNAT.-a Professional email
services may reject connections coming from CGNAT because it allows
multiple users per public IP, and some of those users will (perhaps unkowingly) send "unsavoury material".

It is possible to get a static public IP but it won't be at the entry
level price.

I have a CGNAT connection in Spain and its useless with Eternal
September as it limits the connections per IP address and as many are
sharing the same IP address it continually resets...

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Theo wrote:

[snip]

That's why it doesn't matter if your home IP is on a spam blacklist, because the mail is forwarded via the smarthost and the recipient doesn't see your home IP, CGNAT or otherwise.

No.

The smarthost sees your traffic coming from your home IP. If that is blacklisted the smarthost blocks your traffic immediately - it never
sends it to the recipient.

The operator of the smarthost will log this blocking and may let you
know about it if you ask. Or not - YMMV.
--
Graham J
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Theo wrote:

[snip]

An email hosting service that you pay for will check the IP of an SMTP
request against blacklists; and this is what usually catches those using
CGNAT.

Email hosting companies check the sending IP of emails delivered from the internet to their customers. But emails uploaded to their server by their customers for sending to the internet come in a different route

- also via a firewall -

- they are
authenticated with customer login details, so they have no need to check against IP blacklists.

But many do in fact check against IP blacklists. I have seen Zen
Internet do this. If your credentials have been compromised then the
email hosting company may be sending malicious mail purporting to
originate from you; and they REALLY DO NOT want to be found doing that.
--
Graham J
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

Theo wrote:

[snip]

That's why it doesn't matter if your home IP is on a spam blacklist, because
the mail is forwarded via the smarthost and the recipient doesn't see your home IP, CGNAT or otherwise.

No.

The smarthost sees your traffic coming from your home IP. If that is blacklisted the smarthost blocks your traffic immediately - it never
sends it to the recipient.

The operator of the smarthost will log this blocking and may let you
know about it if you ask. Or not - YMMV.

OK, if the mail host you're paying has decided to block you then you have a problem. But that's not a spam blacklist, that's a general abuse blacklist. The same server might block the IP for making too many connections to IMAP
or HTTP or SSH or any other service. You need to take it up with them as you're a paying customer who can't access the service you're paying for.

Theo
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

Theo wrote:

[snip]

That's why it doesn't matter if your home IP is on a spam blacklist, because
the mail is forwarded via the smarthost and the recipient doesn't see your >>> home IP, CGNAT or otherwise.

No.

The smarthost sees your traffic coming from your home IP. If that is
blacklisted the smarthost blocks your traffic immediately - it never
sends it to the recipient.

The operator of the smarthost will log this blocking and may let you
know about it if you ask. Or not - YMMV.

OK, if the mail host you're paying has decided to block you then you have a problem. But that's not a spam blacklist, that's a general abuse blacklist. The same server might block the IP for making too many connections to IMAP
or HTTP or SSH or any other service. You need to take it up with them as you're a paying customer who can't access the service you're paying for.

Theo

Almost every consumer mobile phone connection uses CGNAT. My phone has
never failed to send an email, either via my home email provider, my work corporate account or gmail. IrCOve never, to the best of my knowledge, had an email rejected due to blacklisting.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Theo wrote:
[snip]

The operator of the smarthost will log this blocking and may let you
know about it if you ask. Or not - YMMV.

OK, if the mail host you're paying has decided to block you then you have a problem. But that's not a spam blacklist, that's a general abuse blacklist. The same server might block the IP for making too many connections to IMAP
or HTTP or SSH or any other service. You need to take it up with them as you're a paying customer who can't access the service you're paying for.

When this happened to a customer who used Zen to host their domain and
provide email services, I rang Zen to find out why. They explained that
my customer's IP was blocked by their firewall. They volunteered to explicitly allow the IP through but agreed that the block would be
applied again when the CGNAT service changed the IP for another which
also happened to be blacklisted.

The solution was for my customer to buy a mobile broadband internet
service from a supplier offering a static IP - at a rather higher price.
Being a business they could afford it .... -
Graham J
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

Theo wrote:
[snip]

The operator of the smarthost will log this blocking and may let you
know about it if you ask. Or not - YMMV.

OK, if the mail host you're paying has decided to block you then you have a >> problem. But that's not a spam blacklist, that's a general abuse blacklist. >> The same server might block the IP for making too many connections to IMAP >> or HTTP or SSH or any other service. You need to take it up with them as
you're a paying customer who can't access the service you're paying for.

When this happened to a customer who used Zen to host their domain and provide email services, I rang Zen to find out why. They explained that
my customer's IP was blocked by their firewall. They volunteered to explicitly allow the IP through but agreed that the block would be
applied again when the CGNAT service changed the IP for another which
also happened to be blacklisted.

The solution was for my customer to buy a mobile broadband internet
service from a supplier offering a static IP - at a rather higher price.
Being a business they could afford it .... -
Graham J

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Tweed wrote:

[snip]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

My notes show this was in July 2021.

I've since asked the same question of other professional email providers
and they say the same thing. From their point of view they can turn
away such custom in order to protect their own reputation.

For a mobile device user, occasional email failures are usually ignored
and attributed to the unreliability of the mobile network as the user
travels around.

In this customer's case - a farm business with several sites, obviously
all very rural - landline internet performance was inadequate or
non-existent. The mobile internet service in their area was rather
better, particularly with an external antenna. So we equipped several locations with a rooftop antenna and a suitable router. This meant that
their IP addresses would often stay the same for several days. So an
email problem, once noticed, would continue for several days, then
resolve itself without anybody in that office doing anything.
--
Graham J
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Theo wrote:

Running your own SMTP server which routes direct to the recipient from
behind an ISP connection is a recipe for trouble nowadays, CGNAT or no
CGNAT. So don't do that.

It still works for me, but maybe I'm part of a lucky minority. I've
been doing it for almost 26 years, after having registered my own domain
in June 2000, and for 23 of those years the server has had the same
static IP address (in an IPv4 /29 that I got from Zen).

It tends to be more reliable than sending via Zen, as their outgoing mailservers occasionally get added to the various anti-spam blocklists.
Another advantage for important emails (e.g. to solicitors) is that
after sending I can check my logs to verify that the email was received
by the destination server.

Over the years I've had to make some config changes to be able to
deliver to the likes of gmail and yahoo, specifically setting up
reverse DNS early on, then SPF some time later, and more recently
DKIM and DMARC.
--
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Geoff Clare wrote:

[snip]
.

It still works for me, but maybe I'm part of a lucky minority. I've
been doing it for almost 26 years, after having registered my own domain
in June 2000, and for 23 of those years the server has had the same
static IP address (in an IPv4 /29 that I got from Zen).

It tends to be more reliable than sending via Zen, as their outgoing mailservers occasionally get added to the various anti-spam blocklists. Another advantage for important emails (e.g. to solicitors) is that
after sending I can check my logs to verify that the email was received
by the destination server.

Over the years I've had to make some config changes to be able to
deliver to the likes of gmail and yahoo, specifically setting up
reverse DNS early on, then SPF some time later, and more recently
DKIM and DMARC.

All the things you mention: Static IP, Reverse DNS, SPF, DKIM and DMARC
are all essential for your own server.

It's worth specifying a backup server in your MX record so people can
still send you emails when your server is down or its internet
connection has failed. So sensible battery backup is also worthwhile.
--
Graham J
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> wrote:

Geoff Clare wrote:

[snip]
.

It still works for me, but maybe I'm part of a lucky minority. I've
been doing it for almost 26 years, after having registered my own domain
in June 2000, and for 23 of those years the server has had the same
static IP address (in an IPv4 /29 that I got from Zen).

It tends to be more reliable than sending via Zen, as their outgoing
mailservers occasionally get added to the various anti-spam blocklists.
Another advantage for important emails (e.g. to solicitors) is that
after sending I can check my logs to verify that the email was received
by the destination server.

Over the years I've had to make some config changes to be able to
deliver to the likes of gmail and yahoo, specifically setting up
reverse DNS early on, then SPF some time later, and more recently
DKIM and DMARC.

All the things you mention: Static IP, Reverse DNS, SPF, DKIM and DMARC
are all essential for your own server.

It's worth specifying a backup server in your MX record so people can
still send you emails when your server is down or its internet
connection has failed. So sensible battery backup is also worthwhile.

None of which helps the OP. Thinking further about the possible
blacklisting of CGNAT IP addresses, donrCOt most mail providers now require authentication, eg authenticated SMTP? So they know who their possible spam originator is and can disable at account level. Disabling at IP address
level doesnrCOt seem sensible in the modern world. Gone are the days where
you could simply fire email at an unauthenticated SMTP server on port 25.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Tweed wrote:

[snip]

None of which helps the OP. Thinking further about the possible
blacklisting of CGNAT IP addresses, donrCOt most mail providers now require authentication, eg authenticated SMTP? So they know who their possible spam originator is and can disable at account level. Disabling at IP address
level doesnrCOt seem sensible in the modern world. Gone are the days where you could simply fire email at an unauthenticated SMTP server on port 25.

Perhaps somebody from a mail hosting business can explain?

I know Zen blocked such traffic (when I asked in 2021) at the perimeter firewall, so there was no access to webmail, IMAP & SMTP servers, or the customer portal. Their sales website was still visible and shows their
phone number.
--
Graham J
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
a smartphone, or who use a landline.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of >> a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing
dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an >> email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
a smartphone, or who use a landline.

I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of >>> a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing
dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an >>> email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
a smartphone, or who use a landline.

I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats.

Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
my line of work thererCOs no chance that email will go away.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of >>>> a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing >>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an >>>> email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess >>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.

I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the
asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the >> immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats.

Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
my line of work thererCOs no chance that email will go away.

You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.

I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
(or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And Jonathan Harker would never have sent all those letters to his
beloved Mina from Transylvania, he'd have texted her instead. "Stuck in
weird castle w guy w big teeth. Missing u. xxxx (-:"
- Alison Graham, RT 2015/11/7-13
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing >>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an
email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess >>>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.

I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the >>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the >>> immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats.

Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
my line of work thererCOs no chance that email will go away.

You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.

I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
(or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)

Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in business
who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in different time
zones you need a method of communication that can be attended to not immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is sent and received, can have documents attached, uses common standards (ie not some proprietary
protocol) because you donrCOt know what the other end is using, etc.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of >>>> a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing >>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an >>>> email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess >>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.

I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the
asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the >> immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats.

Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
my line of work thererCOs no chance that email will go away.

You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.

I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
(or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And Jonathan Harker would never have sent all those letters to his
beloved Mina from Transylvania, he'd have texted her instead. "Stuck in
weird castle w guy w big teeth. Missing u. xxxx (-:"
- Alison Graham, RT 2015/11/7-13
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026/5/24 7:11:14, Tweed wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer >>>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing >>>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an
email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be >>>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess >>>>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.

I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the >>>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats.

Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but >>> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In >>> my line of work thererCOs no chance that email will go away.

You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.

I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
(or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)

Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in business who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in different time zones you need a method of communication that can be attended to not immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is sent and received, can have documents attached, uses common standards (ie not some proprietary
protocol) because you donrCOt know what the other end is using, etc.

I'm with you (though I remember confusion over UUcode, MIME, and I think
a later protocol - initially UU was the default and you only used MIME
for those you knew could handle it, now many clients don't even know
what to do with UU - not to mention whether truly embedded or not);
however, as Chris says, some of today's generation struggle with email.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If this power [television] is ever brought to mechanical perfection,
there is little reason, except the desire to be gregarious, that anyone
but a few should go in person to any place of entertainment again.
- BBC yearbook 1930
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Please ignore duplication; problems with Thunderbird and/or
eternal-september made me see it as not having been sent, though it
seems it was (though possibly some time after I created it).
On 2026/5/24 10:58:11, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer
connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing >>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an
email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future
start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be
viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess >>>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.

I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the >>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the >>> immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats.

Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but
when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In
my line of work thererCOs no chance that email will go away.

You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you> last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.>
I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram
(or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating> to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since
it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/24 7:11:14, Tweed wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer >>>>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing >>>>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an
email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future >>>>>> start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be >>>>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess >>>>>> a smartphone, or who use a landline.

I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the >>>>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats.

Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email.
Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but >>>> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In >>>> my line of work thererCOs no chance that email will go away.

You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you
last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there.

I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram >>> (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating
to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since >>> it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)

Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in business >> who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in different time
zones you need a method of communication that can be attended to not
immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is sent and received, can have >> documents attached, uses common standards (ie not some proprietary
protocol) because you donrCOt know what the other end is using, etc.

I'm with you (though I remember confusion over UUcode, MIME, and I think
a later protocol - initially UU was the default and you only used MIME
for those you knew could handle it, now many clients don't even know
what to do with UU - not to mention whether truly embedded or not);
however, as Chris says, some of today's generation struggle with email.

Struggle yes. IrCOve noticed that the younger folk agonise for ages composing an email. Me, I just type a few quick lines and hit send. Extra black marks
for people who start emails with rCLI hope this email finds you wellrCY or similar.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026/5/24 12:18:39, Tweed wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/24 7:11:14, Tweed wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer >>>>>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing >>>>>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an
email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future >>>>>>> start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be >>>>>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
a smartphone, or who use a landline.

I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the >>>>>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats.

Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email. >>>>> Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but >>>>> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In >>>>> my line of work thererCOs no chance that email will go away.

You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you >>>> last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there. >>>>
I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram >>>> (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating >>>> to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since >>>> it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)

Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in business >>> who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in different time >>> zones you need a method of communication that can be attended to not
immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is sent and received, can have >>> documents attached, uses common standards (ie not some proprietary
protocol) because you donrCOt know what the other end is using, etc.

I'm with you (though I remember confusion over UUcode, MIME, and I think
a later protocol - initially UU was the default and you only used MIME
for those you knew could handle it, now many clients don't even know
what to do with UU - not to mention whether truly embedded or not);
however, as Chris says, some of today's generation struggle with email.

Struggle yes. IrCOve noticed that the younger folk agonise for ages composing an email. Me, I just type a few quick lines and hit send. Extra black marks for people who start emails with rCLI hope this email finds you wellrCY or similar.

Yes, that makes me think I'm back in the days of "referring to yours of
the 5th ult."!

Or who sign off with "Yours sincerely/faithfully". (I might stretch to a "Regards,", though not often.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Key to understanding the English is that they do serious things
sillily, and silly things seriously.
- @williambulmer6389 on YouTube, ~2024
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 24/05/2026 12:18, Tweed wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/24 7:11:14, Tweed wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer >>>>>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing >>>>>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an
email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future >>>>>>> start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be >>>>>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
a smartphone, or who use a landline.

I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the >>>>>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats.

Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email. >>>>> Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but >>>>> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In >>>>> my line of work thererCOs no chance that email will go away.

You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you >>>> last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there. >>>>
I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram >>>> (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating >>>> to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since >>>> it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)

Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in business >>> who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in different time >>> zones you need a method of communication that can be attended to not
immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is sent and received, can have >>> documents attached, uses common standards (ie not some proprietary
protocol) because you donrCOt know what the other end is using, etc.

I'm with you (though I remember confusion over UUcode, MIME, and I think
a later protocol - initially UU was the default and you only used MIME
for those you knew could handle it, now many clients don't even know
what to do with UU - not to mention whether truly embedded or not);
however, as Chris says, some of today's generation struggle with email.

Struggle yes. IrCOve noticed that the younger folk agonise for ages composing an email. Me, I just type a few quick lines and hit send. Extra black marks for people who start emails with rCLI hope this email finds you wellrCY or similar.

Or "Hi, how are you doing?"

How am I doing WHAT?

David
--
David Rance writing from Le Mesnil Villement, Calvados, France


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/24 7:11:14, Tweed wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[]

How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when CGNAT was a bit of
a novelty. These days, with probably the vast majority of consumer >>>>>>>> connections (including mobile phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing >>>>>>>> dynamically allocated routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an
email provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near future >>>>>>> start to be considered an anachronism, and those using it start to be >>>>>>> viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as those who now do not possess
a smartphone, or who use a landline.

I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit with the >>>>>> asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of email. They're used to the
immediacy of instragram or snapchat or family groupchats.

Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover email. >>>>> Instant messaging in its various forms works within an organisation, but >>>>> when you need to deal with external folk you still need email, mostly. In >>>>> my line of work thererCOs no chance that email will go away.

You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when did you >>>> last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions happened there. >>>>
I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK, I
have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them for
ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on instagram >>>> (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example matters relating >>>> to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally open to all, but since >>>> it's in the middle of a weekday morning a young person is very rare.)

Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in business >>> who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in different time >>> zones you need a method of communication that can be attended to not
immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is sent and received, can have >>> documents attached, uses common standards (ie not some proprietary
protocol) because you donrCOt know what the other end is using, etc.

I'm with you (though I remember confusion over UUcode, MIME, and I think
a later protocol - initially UU was the default and you only used MIME
for those you knew could handle it, now many clients don't even know
what to do with UU - not to mention whether truly embedded or not);
however, as Chris says, some of today's generation struggle with email.

Struggle yes. IrCOve noticed that the younger folk agonise for ages composing an email.

Literal days of agony. Not even kidding.

Me, I just type a few quick lines and hit send.

Me too, mostly.

Extra black marks
for people who start emails with rCLI hope this email finds you wellrCY or similar.

That's a bit harsh.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> writes:

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/24 7:11:14, Tweed wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/23 11:32:17, Tweed wrote:

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

On 2026/5/22 8:36:0, Tweed wrote:
[] > How long ago was this? My guess it was in the days when >>>>>>>>CGNAT was a bit of > a novelty. These days, with probably the >>>>>>>>vast majority of consumer > connections (including mobile >>>>>>>>phones) via CGNAT or frequently changing > dynamically allocated >>>>>>>>routeable addresses yourCOd be out of business as an > email >>>>>>>>provider if you blacklisted originating IP addresses.

I have a nasty feeling that email as a whole may in the near
future start to be considered an anachronism, and those using
it start to be viewed in the same insulting/pitying way as
those who now do not possess a smartphone, or who use a
landline.

I can confirm with recently adult children, they struggle a bit
with the asynchronous and somewhat more formal aspects of
email. They're used to the immediacy of instragram or snapchat
or family groupchats.

Once they get deeply into the world of work they will discover
email. Instant messaging in its various forms works within an
organisation, but when you need to deal with external folk you
still need email, mostly. In my line of work thererCOs no chance
that email will go away.

You may say that - but think: in the same work situations, when
did you last send a paper letter? I'm sure the same discussions
happened there.

I _like_ email, and am not on any of the "instant" mechanisms (OK,
I have a dumbphone that can get texts, but I might not notice them
for ages). I _do_ get slightly odd looks when I say no, I'm not on
instagram (or whatever) - not just "young folk", but for example
matters relating to the old folks coffee morning. (Well, nominally
open to all, but since it's in the middle of a weekday morning a
young person is very rare.)

Email is the replacement for letters. When you deal with people in
business who are not part of your organisation and are possibly in
different time zones you need a method of communication that can be
attended to not immediately, keeps a sortable record of what is
sent and received, can have documents attached, uses common
standards (ie not some proprietary protocol) because you donrCOt know
what the other end is using, etc.

I'm with you (though I remember confusion over UUcode, MIME, and I
think a later protocol - initially UU was the default and you only
used MIME for those you knew could handle it, now many clients don't
even know what to do with UU - not to mention whether truly embedded
or not); however, as Chris says, some of today's generation struggle
with email.

Struggle yes. IrCOve noticed that the younger folk agonise for ages
composing an email.

Literal days of agony. Not even kidding.

Me, I just type a few quick lines and hit send.

Me too, mostly.

Extra black marks for people who start emails with rCLI hope this email
finds you wellrCY or similar.

That's a bit harsh.

I have had so many misunderstandings because of brief ambiguous text
messages and emails, I think we should go back to the 18th centuary art
of writing long letters. In those days as the turn around time was so
long it was better to say it twice in two different ways than say it ambiguously.

You can write formal or informal emails, just as you could with
letters. You can even use Delta Chat to sent emails with a chat
interface.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 21/05/2026 10:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:

I have just spoken to EE about this.

I can get 4G in the village and was offered 2 packages:

100 Mb/s unlimited downloads -u35 per month
Max speed (whatever the SIM supports) unlimited downloads -u43 per month

I currently get 12 Mb/s over my landline so the potential speed is a dream.

Problem is the connections is via a small box that you can take from room
to room and connect to via WiFi so whenever I want to use the Internet I >have to connect (up to 5 devices a time).

At the moment I feed the connection into my powerline so it's available in >any room and the router also has WiFi so any device can connect via WiFi.

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something that
you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

I have a colleague who uses this without any problems. As others have
written, caveat YMMV, but definitely worth trying if on an old ADSL
connection. If you have a landline number you want to keep, you may need to
migrate it to a VoIP provider. If the 4/5G router has an ethernet port, you
can build your own wired/wireless network and connect the router to this.
--
--
A PICKER OF UNCONSIDERED TRIFLES
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026/5/30 10:29:44, Jason H wrote:

On 21/05/2026 10:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:

[]

Problem is the connections is via a small box that you can take from room >> to room and connect to via WiFi so whenever I want to use the Internet I
have to connect (up to 5 devices a time).

When you say take from room to room, do you mean you have to, because
its wifi connectivity is of very limited range? Or just that you _can_
(which I'd not do unless it _is_ that limited)?
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never raise your hand to your children. It leaves your mid-section
unprotected
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On Sat 30/05/2026 10:29, Jason H wrote:

On 21/05/2026 10:15, Jeff Gaines wrote:

I have just spoken to EE about this.

I can get 4G in the village and was offered 2 packages:

100 Mb/s unlimited downloads -u35 per month
Max speed (whatever the SIM supports) unlimited downloads -u43 per month

I currently get 12 Mb/s over my landline so the potential speed is a
dream.

Problem is the connections is via a small box that you can take from
room to room and connect to via WiFi so whenever I want to use the
Internet I have to connect (up to 5 devices a time).

At the moment I feed the connection into my powerline so it's
available in any room and the router also has WiFi so any device can
connect via WiFi.

Does anybody here have this sort of service? If so is it something
that you get used to? It's quite a different way of working.

I have a colleague who uses this without any problems. As others have written, caveat YMMV, but definitely worth trying if on an old ADSL connection. If you have a landline number you want to keep, you may need to migrate it to a VoIP provider. If the 4/5G router has an ethernet port, you can build your own wired/wireless network and connect the router to this.

A friend has recently moved to an small new development which has EE
fibre only. They have been told that they cannot erect aerials or sat
dishes (although that is not in writing and the properties are freehold)
- but the house is wired from all rooms to a common location in the
loft, all terminated in B/L TV connectors. Fortunately they live within
site of a relay TX so ordinary off-air signals do work even with an
indoor aerial!

Their problem is that EE do not carry all Freeview channels. On our
friend's behalf (he is totally non-technical) I rang Sky who said that
as BTOR carry EE and Sky, he could move to Sky very easily - as indeed
he did.

Sky provide a free telephone 'line' within this package on which they
can receive calls, but if you don't have a call package, then to make
calls? 27p/minute!!! Ergo the suggestion above of moving the landline
phone number to a Voip provider (calls usually a few pence a minute if
not even free) is sound. The Voip service will continue to work whoever
is the main broadband provider.

Next question on here is to ask for opinions on Voip providers!

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Woody wrote:

A friend has recently moved to an small new development which has EE
fibre only

Doesn't sound right? EE is part of BT (like Plusnet) so you can bet
it's installed by Openreach and any other provider that runs over
Openreach is also available ...

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 2026/5/30 15:54:48, Woody wrote:
[]

A friend has recently moved to an small new development which has EE
fibre only.

(Andy: I don't think he meant only from EE, I think he meant fibre only,
no dish or aerial.)

They have been told that they cannot erect aerials or sat

dishes (although that is not in writing and the properties are freehold)

Might be something in the planning grant for the development - worth
checking; should be freely available (and not _too_ hard to find) on the relevant local authority planning website. Though even if there's
nothing actually blocking it, may be unpopular with neighbours if does
put something up. But ...

- but the house is wired from all rooms to a common location in the
loft, all terminated in B/L TV connectors. Fortunately they live within
site of a relay TX so ordinary off-air signals do work even with an
indoor aerial!

... if that's the case, an aerial in the loft (unless the roof is made
of something very odd, or maybe has solar panels) might be all that's
needed (perhaps with a booster if it's to feed lots of rooms).

Their problem is that EE do not carry all Freeview channels. On our
friend's behalf (he is totally non-technical) I rang Sky who said that
as BTOR carry EE and Sky, he could move to Sky very easily - as indeed
he did.

Paying, of course, for what he can get for free. Unless he is now hooked
on the extra channels. Also, presumably, using up some of his internet bandwidth, though probably not significant if full fibre, unless a many-streaming household.

Sky provide a free telephone 'line' within this package on which they
can receive calls, but if you don't have a call package, then to make
calls? 27p/minute!!! Ergo the suggestion above of moving the landline
phone number to a Voip provider (calls usually a few pence a minute if
not even free) is sound. The Voip service will continue to work whoever
is the main broadband provider.

Does he have a mobile contract with free minutes? I know most people do
(I don't); if so, then the Sky one - which sounds like it's VoIP anyway
- is least bother (just make outgoing calls on the mobile) and free;
most VoIP suppliers do charge, even though only a tiny amount, to keep a landline number.

Next question on here is to ask for opinions on Voip providers!

Or on u.t.voip :-) [I've added it.]

Being one of the few _without_ a mobile contract that includes free
minutes, I've been monitoring what people are saying here, and here's
what I've garnered: Zen are workmanlike, though I'm not sure if you can
have _just_ VoIP from them, or have to get your broadband from them; A&A (Andrews & Arnold) may be excellent, though at least one has found that
their reputation for being the Rolls-Royce of ISP has made them a bit
snooty when dealing with customers for just VoIP (which they're doing at competitive pricing); voipfone seems to be regarded well by the one or
two using them. Prices seem to be, I think, a pound or two for just the facility, maybe plus a one-off fee to transfer a number; five or six for
the number plus about 500 minutes a month; other fees for different
numbers of minutes, including unlimited for quite a lot (not sure if all providers provide that option). If you are going to continue using your analogue 'phone, you'll need an adapter ("ATA"), unless the router the
ISP provides has one built in, or your current handset is one that can
register with a base station that some routers already include. (BT and
I think Zen's routers have the ATA built in [a telephone socket on the
router]; I _think_ EE do; PlusNet don't (and aren't going to be offering
VoIP).

Clarifications/corrections welcome :-)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

cookery seems to be the new sex. - Michael Buerk in RT, 2017/1/21-27
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> writes:

Their problem is that EE do not carry all Freeview channels.

What channels are there which cannot be obtained over the internet? Why
not buy a Roku TV stick? too late now, but it seemed odd to me to link
tv channels to broadband.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On 30/05/2026 17:25, Richmond wrote:

Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> writes:

Their problem is that EE do not carry all Freeview channels.

What channels are there which cannot be obtained over the internet? Why
not buy a Roku TV stick? too late now, but it seemed odd to me to link
tv channels to broadband.

Quest, the various +1 channels , Sky Mix, Sky Arts, TLC

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom.broadband

On Sat 30/05/2026 16:01, Andy Burns wrote:

Woody wrote:

A friend has recently moved to an small new development which has EE
fibre only

Doesn't sound right?-a EE is part of BT (like Plusnet) so you can bet
it's installed by Openreach and any other provider that runs over
Openreach is also available ...

The installation already in place was branded EE and so were the the
bills. He had been told that it was EE or nothing. I called Sky who said
-as I thought they would and you did - that both EE and Sky use OR so
they could swap - which he did as a former Sky user. The daft bit is
that EE is poor in the village and O2 is not much better. There is a
single mast in the middle of the village that carries 3 only.

The house our friend lives in is one of these modern' throw-ups' which
uses quite a lot of metal foil in the insulation - that doesn't help. I
did warn them before they moved and that they should move the number to
Voip so that could retain it when they moved (same dialling code) but
they didn't bother and now have a new number that no-one knows!

There's a lot more channels than those nominated missing - all the
selling channels, most (all) of the 'That's' channels 70 and upwards, so
of the 5series channels etc. We get over 80 SD channels off air, they
get about 45 off EE but more than us (now) off Sky.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2